Here Come the First Xbox One Launch Games

The Xbox Wire has a fun post this morning about the Xbox One launch games heading out the door ... literally. With just 10 days to go until the new console's November 22 launch, Microsoft revealed that several launch titles have completed development and are now shipping to stores.

Completed launch games include Dead Rising 3, Forza Motorsport 5, Ryse: Son of Rome and Zoo Tycoon. These titles have "gone gold," and are currently being published, packaged and shipped to retailers.

Sorry for being so cynical, but Micorsoft have really B*mm*d out badly on the weak Performance of the XBoxOne, compared to the PS4, which has 50% more graphics cores and faster memory, and also sold at a lower price point.

I did watch closely at both consoles at Paris Games Week and I can assure you that you just cannot see any difference while playing. None. You need to pause, enlarge or get real close to the display to notice a few variations.

That being said, if graphics are so important to you, why play on a console? It looks like the right path for you is the PC, Jules. :)
I am actually a casual PC gamer now and, as a matter of fact, I'm ready to get my first console (since the Atari days! *chuckles*) because I consider that the quality level reached by the Xbox One is good enough for me and the added features it provides alongside gaming with Kinect 2 are precisely the stuff I'm looking for...

It's hardly a big deal and it won't translate to very much in the real world. 60FPS is far more important than the game resolution and I believe both have mandated 60fps. The only difference is that a higher resolution will get you slightly sharper models and textures, but only if the textures were drawn at the higher resolution to begin with. If they're not, then it's a total wash there.

At 60fps, a 720 render upscaled to 1080 with FSAA is going to look as good or better than 1080 without FSAA and the reality is that the PS4's hardware isn't going to allow it to run at 1080 all the time and keep the frame rate up. It's more powerful, but it's not THAT much more powerful.

The PS4's GPU is about 50% more powerful. Or you could say that the X-box One is 33% less powerful.

That extra power can be used to up the resolution, or a game can be crafted at a lower resolution but with more action going on or more detailed graphics.

Either way, don't the tendency to downplay the difference is poor. Xbox 360 users were quite happy to crow about the various games that looked better on the 360 than they did on the PS3 and that difference drove sales and increased engagement.

If graphics don't matter, buy a Wii. Or buy an Xbox for the Kinect, because that's where the budget went.

@JulesVerny No system is perfect, and weak performance is a matter of perspective. Case in point there were similar issues with Skyrim on PS3 vs Xobx where the PS3 had to lower resolution or had other display issues as well as launch title difference with the last go around. The design of the XB1 lends itself to greater longevity by the sheer fact it will be able to do more than just gaming. There undoubtable will be games that run better on one platform over the other, but the difference will be small. And it's not all about gaming now nor over the next 10 years…
From a recent Arstechnica article (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/11/the-xbox-one-and-ps4-share-similar...):
"In analyzing the Battlefield resolution situation, Ars Gaming Editor Kyle Orland noted that, aside from the resolution, the scenes rendered by both consoles appeared to be identical in every way from smoke effects to textures to colors and shadows. There were differences, but they weren't very noticeable unless you happened to be sitting very near to your monitor and looking for them…
…One thing is clear: the era of the console wars that focused entirely on raw specifications is already on the wane following the PS3 and Xbox 360 generation. You have to dig pretty deep and have strong moral objections to resolution scaling to find significant arguments about console specs in this day and age (unless you're arguing about the Wii U, of course)."
Pricing is a non-issue, if you include the relatively useless PS Eye, the prices are on par. If you recall, that was a stunt done at launch and one I think will hurt the PS4 over the long term. Given that both are 10 year devices, the insistence on the bundle by MS is a great long term strategy.
The difference will be in the coming year(s), where the versatility and integration of the Xbox One blow the PS4 out of the water. The applications for Kinect both at home and as a tool for other applications will prove to be far superior. I could actually see buying a few Xbox Ones and using them as Video Conferencing solutions within my office, far cheaper and more versatile than a dedicated setup which can cost many thousands of dollars.
Given the superior controller of the XB, the long term upside of the XB, and the integration (SmartGlass on just about any device for example, SkyDrive, Music…) I am more than willing to sacrifice a few, not very noticeable, lines of resolution on some game titles. Overall, I think the XB1 will prove to be compelling purchase to more people, save for a few hard core gamers and PS loyalists, but hey, I don’t think that’s the core market MS is going for with the XB1 anyways…

I think people get way too caught up in launch titles as a way to measure system performance. It took years to finally squeeze every ounce of performance out of existing consoles. Anything that comes out before the year end is at the mercy of how quickly and skillfully game designers were able to optimize their game engine for the 8 core system architecture, not the power of the systems themselves. We wont see true next generation experiences until next year.

But with that said, I disagree with the Arstechnica's almost dismissive writeup about the brawnier PS4 architecture. The idea of "All these games are going to look the same" is just wrong. Contrary to this belief that the PS3 was the superior console graphically, the Xbox 360 was the superior console for third party titles hands down. Games had better framerates, better textures and in some cases higher resolutions on the Xbox 360 than the PS3. Xbox gamers get it wrong when they say that the PS3 was the more powerful console and yet the Xbox 360 did better, therefore something similar will happen with the Xbox One. The Xbox 360 was architecturally superior in two key ways: Double the ram of the PS3 and easier development. The ram is the reason why games like GTA IV was a higher resolution on Xbox 360, same with Red Dead Redemption. The ram is also the reason Skyim actually functioned on the Xbox and was almost unplayable on the PS3, to the point where addons and expansions were neglected.

And this is where the argument is lost for Xbox people. These systems are x86, it's as vanilla ice cream as it gets. The architecture is so easily understood by a basic PC guy that we can just look at the spec sheet and know full well which system will be the better performer. The facts are simple here. Xbox has slower ram, a compicated esram setup that may get neglected during third party development, and a weaker GPU. Not just a slightly weaker GPU, but a pretty hefty downgrade. It's all but written in stone that the Xbox One will get the lower res, lower framerate and lower textures of the next decade. They dropped the ball tremendously in staying graphically competitive.

And to add serious insult to injury, it's priced $100 higher for a component (kinect) that core gamers have long rejected. Core gamers are the early adopters here. Regardless of this future vision of Microsoft for the Xbox being an Apple TV competitor, they have to capture an early install base for it to work.

The message has been pretty dead simple since E3. Do you want the best version of all games that aren't exclusives? Then you'll want a PS4. Do you like Halo, Gears of War, Kinect and Microsoft media solutions? Grab an Xbox One. Just don't try to muddy the debate by continuing to infer that both these consoles are going to pump out the basic visuals and that it wont really matter. Math will not be on your side in that argument. This is probably the largest gap in console power since the PS2 and the original Xbox.

With that said, this is no way implies that the Xbox One will fail. If the Xbox One fails, it wont be because of graphics, but the price. I'm of the mindset that graphics aren't the end of the world and games are what matters most. But i'm also for setting the record straight and dislike when people with biases try to wiggle their way through tough realities.

"... and dislike when people with biases try to wiggle their way through tough realities." don't talk to Apple fan boys then... ;o)

On paper the PS4 is better, I don't think anyone would claim otherwise, and I don't think the ARS article is either. Their main point is those factors are less of an issue overall than what they used to be, and paper doesn't translate to the real world realities sometimes.

Hardcore gamers will only carry a platform so far. PS4 is clearly slanted to hardcore gamers, no doubt, and for them those little difference most people won't notice do matter. Again, MS is not going for the hardcore gamer, they are casting a much wider net. That requires compromises. Both from the design side and the pricing. And if MS had gone second (I think they went first at least) at E3, you very well may have seen a PS4 at the same price point with a bundled Eye...

The future of the PS4 may "just" be hardcore gaming, but that's not where the future of the XB1 is headed. New revenue streams from media and apps, industrial/commercial applications, deep ecosystem integration, and owning the living room is where the XB1 is headed.

I would wager the odds of someone owning both consoles in the end is higher for the person buying the PS4 first than the person buying the XB1.

Here's the thing. Could not MS have done BOTH? There doesn't seem to be a reason why the Xbone could not have at least matched the PS4 in terms of delivering a platform equal in its ability to render HD graphics at a high frame rate. What Sony has done with the PS4 is, by no accounts, a matter of ingenious design. It simply delivered a better system (for gaming, at least). MS could have done the same, and I really don't see that doing so would have compromised the Xbone's ability to be "more than a gaming platform."

The only limiting factor that I could think of is price (meaning cost), but I haven't seen the argument to say that MS could not have delivered PS4 processing specs at a similar price without compromising the rest of the system.

What we need to consider is that MS is at war with Sony for console dominance, and, by extension, for the living room. In cheaping out on graphics capabilities, it has (most probably) given up a lot of market share in the initial launch era to Sony for all those people who can't really justify the cost of buying both consoles (this is a lot of people). Everything else about the Xbone now MUST be better, since it looks like they will be digging themselves out of a hole.

I get the feeling, moreover, that the execs approached the PS4 team by saying: "Give us a system that can deliver games in 1080p at 60 fps. Also, try to come in under $400 retail. If you can't do the latter, we'll find a way to deal with it."

MS execs probably approached the Xbox team, in contrast, by saying: "Give us a system that comes in at under $500, period. Also, try to make it play games in 1080p at 60 fps. If you can't do the latter, we'll find a way to deal with it."

If MS was capable of delivering the no-brainer best gaming/entertainment system, they should've done it. They didn't, and as a result they put themselves in a position of having to fight an uphill battle with Sony in the console wars this time around. There's no reason at all to presume that it will end in a virtual stalemate like the last time. MS just looks like it got complacent. Sadly, that comes as little surprise.

According to a "confirmed microsoft employee" on Reddit, the Kinect costs "almost as much" as the rest of the Xbox one to manufacture.

So they blew their budget on this thing, which is definitely not my cup of tea. They wanted to be this generation's Wii, but I think they'll just end up being this generation's Game Cube. Casual gamers have gone to phones.

I know it's going to sound lame, but I'm excited by Zoo Tycoon. The last PC version (Zoo Tycoon II) was fantastic. I was bummed when it seemed that MS had given up on that title.

The importance of performance differences between PS3 and Xbox 360 disappeared over time, partly because devs learned how to optimize games for each platform, and mostly because the extremists on both sides stopped having any influence. The same will happen for the new generation.

I'm going to be living vicariously through other people for a little while as I watch the launch unfold and people discuss/debate it and upload game footage, etc. I wouldn't mind getting an Xbox One, but I just don't know when or if I will.

The graphics thing will work itself out. Games will look good on both consoles. My question is with such similar hardware how did the engineers for Sony manage to integrate the power supply into the PS4 but the Xbone still has a HUGE external power brick?
Besides the Harrier Jump Jet quality of the Xbox 360's fan(non-slim model) the power brick is the worst thing about it. I was certain MS would eliminate that if this was meant to be a living room media console. These bricks are a serious PITA. Do better MS!

PS3 had ita own version of flashing lights and a bricked unit. I just went through it unfortunately my unit was out of warranty so I ended up with a boat anchor. I'm fired up for XO, killer games and entertainment features. When I watched the BF4 comparison between PS4 & XO I could barely see a difference. I actually thought XO looked better in some screens due to better textures. The PS4 ran 900P vs 780 and it didn't look as good.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More